My archives

1 2 3

You commented at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 December 25#Silcone Valley. That discussion was closed with consensus to retarget the Silicone Valley redirect to Silicon Valley. Your opinion would now be welcome about whether Silcon Valley should have a hatnote pointing to San Fernando Valley#Adult ednterainment, the former target of the redirect and only other notable meaning of the term. Please comment at Talk:Silicon Valley#Hatnote, thanks. Thryduulf (talk) 23:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pacoima Dam may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Pacoima Dam withstood, but was damaged by the very strong, >1 g, ground shaking which occurred during both the 1971 and 1994 earthquakes. The United States
• The United States Geological Survey (USGS) and Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC), 1994). Because of concerns about the stability of this dam, especially its response to potential future

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pacoima, Los Angeles may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * [[San Fernando High School|San Fernando Senior High School]], 11133 O'Melveny Avenue (in Pacoima, in proximity to the [[San Fernando, California|City of San Fernando]]{{dubious}} <ref

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

• Hi there. I'm not sure why you removed this school from the Pacoima article. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I wrote about that on the Talk page but I will here as well. Although part of the LAUSD and serves a portion of, it is not located in Pacoima. As per the school's site, as others, the address shown is- 11133 O'Melveny Ave, San Fernando, CA 91340 Thanks Imveracious (talk) 14:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gate valve may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• This construction is adopted for valves for high pressure service, typically in excess of 2250 psi (15 ([[Megapascal|MPa]]). The unique feature about the pressure seal bonnet is that the body -

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited St. Francis Dam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conglomerate. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

I took the quick and easy way to undo the other editor's edits, and I'm sorry that that happened with you in the middle. Just a quick apology, Dawnseeker2000 19:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

Hi, please do not make changes to an article that make it disagree with itself. It's not good for the readers. The source(s) on the duration are in agreement and should be left alone. Thank you, Dawnseeker2000 19:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind backing off that article altogether? I'm working on constructing a good article, and your repeated mistakes across the various articles that I've seen you touch are not making me confident on your style. Please respect this request. We have battled once and I really don't have the energy to do this again. I understand that this is going to come off as rude, but seriously, it's one mistake (or incorrect reason to make a change) after another with you. Sorry, I'm a perfectionist. Let me get the article to good article status. Please. Dawnseeker2000 20:01, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want to "battle" either but are you aware of what a wiki is? No editor owns the article, see- WP:OWN yet this is very much what you are doing, or trying to. With the changes I made the article did not disagree with itself, please tell me where it did, and my changes were referenced. My repeated "mistakes"-- Accuracy is a "mistake"? If you are such a perfectionist, why then are you using references which contradict themselves? Stover, C. W.; Coffman, J. L. (1993), Seismicity of the United States, 1568-1989 (Revised) has it listed as 60 seconds. Are they wrong? The USGS has it the same, are they incorrect as well? Also, I do believe MOS for distance with the metric equivalent that you are using is incorrect. This is a US en Wiki and as such the US standard should appear first. I also see that in this aspect you are using both and yet you are a perfectionist, interesting. ---You say "..cross the various articles that I've seen you touch.." I take it that you follow my activities closely? A word to the wise, don't go there, it will bring you nothing but trouble! Quit following my work and changing it as you see fit. So which way do you want to have things, correct or as YOU want and pick parts to include because they meet your standards? I will wait so that you may respond before any further changes or reverts may be made. Imveracious (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've responded over there. There's probably a lot more to say, but let's just start with that :) Dawnseeker2000 22:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I didn't look closely at your conversion changes, but that's fine if you're just going to change the metric units. That was a large addition that I posed last year, and I just didn't get into any of that. Dawnseeker2000 22:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What? This response makes no sense-- Imveracious (talk) 00:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Imveracious, we are not communicating well, and I'm sorry. I don't know what to do about that. A phone call would probably work better than all this typing. What I said was that at the time of the expansion I did last year (and since then) I haven't put any effort toward what you did with the conversions. I had only written what was said in the sources. In other words, I didn't modify the text to align with the Manual of Style for units. Dawnseeker2000 00:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

In a recent edit to the page Power dividers and directional couplers, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. SpinningSpark 00:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 01:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]